Biden's Internet Promises in Limbo Amid Long Battle Over FCC Nominee (washingtonpost.com) 27
The nation's telecommunications regulator has been without a Democratic majority for the entirety of President Biden's 21-month tenure, hamstringing efforts to restore open internet protections and close the digital divide. From a report: Breaking the deadlock at the Federal Communications Commission hinges on confirming Gigi Sohn, a longtime public interest advocate and former Democratic FCC official who was first nominated by the White House nearly a year ago. As the midterm elections approach and Democrats' ability to retain their narrow control of the Senate remains uncertain, Sohn's supporters are warning Congress that the clock is ticking to lock in a majority at the agency. On Friday, about 250 industry and public interest groups wrote a letter to top Senate leaders calling for a vote on Sohn's nomination before Congress adjourns at the end of the year.
"The FCC needs a full commission as it begins to deliberate on upcoming critical decisions that will have profound impacts on the economy and the American people," leaders from groups including the Consumer Technology Association, Rural Wireless Association and Color Of Change wrote in a letter shared exclusively with The Washington Post. The push from Sohn's supporters follows what her allies describe as an unprecedented effort from some telecommunications and media lobbyists to block her nomination. Biden's failure to secure a majority or full complement of commissioners at the FCC marks one of the longest delays in recent memory for a first-term president. "It's insane," said Greg Guice, the director of Public Knowledge's government affairs team who has worked in roles related to tech regulation for more than 20 years. (Sohn previously worked at Public Knowledge, which is among the signatories of the Friday letter). Lobbyists "know that being down one seat means they can better control the agenda," he said.
"The FCC needs a full commission as it begins to deliberate on upcoming critical decisions that will have profound impacts on the economy and the American people," leaders from groups including the Consumer Technology Association, Rural Wireless Association and Color Of Change wrote in a letter shared exclusively with The Washington Post. The push from Sohn's supporters follows what her allies describe as an unprecedented effort from some telecommunications and media lobbyists to block her nomination. Biden's failure to secure a majority or full complement of commissioners at the FCC marks one of the longest delays in recent memory for a first-term president. "It's insane," said Greg Guice, the director of Public Knowledge's government affairs team who has worked in roles related to tech regulation for more than 20 years. (Sohn previously worked at Public Knowledge, which is among the signatories of the Friday letter). Lobbyists "know that being down one seat means they can better control the agenda," he said.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Just part of the charade... Congress is supposed to legislate "net neutrality", the FCC just exists to enforce it. We shouldn't let unelected bureaucrats make the rules that are so easily reversed by mere executive order
Re: (Score:2)
Just part of the charade... Congress is supposed to legislate "net neutrality", the FCC just exists to enforce it. We shouldn't let unelected bureaucrats make the rules that are so easily reversed by mere executive order
Congress is supposed to legislate such matters, but they've become accustomed to letting the alphabet agencies do their job, and take the heat. And this, of course, is a dereliction of their duty, as much of our lives are governed by these people we never elected. I'd argue that much of the rule making from alphabet agencies is unconstitutional, in fact, as the Constitution specifies Congress is responsible in this role, and makes no provision for the Congress delegating their authority in this manner.
Re:I love how (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress is supposed to legislate "net neutrality", the FCC just exists to enforce it.
Well let's see about that.
For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter
That would be 47 USC 151. And you can take a quick read through all of Chapter five there to see, EXACTLY what Congress expects of the FCC. And if you go there looking for specifics, you'll be sorely disappointed.
Congress indicates a direction, the Executive deals with the details. Just like war. Congress declares war, the Executive deals with the details of the war. This idea that Congress must dictate every single little exception has never been the case, was not ever the case, and was never considered the case for how we should run our government. It's just some notion that people like to toss around to shift blame for bad planning. You shouldn't buy their shitty excuses.
We shouldn't let unelected bureaucrats make the rules that are so easily reversed by mere executive order
You know people say this and yet when companies tell you to go pound sand we're doing it our way, should've read our ever changing TOS! Everyone starts screaming regulate me harder daddy. Tell you the truth, I don't think some people are incredibly smart about what it is they want and because of that, they find themselves very easy targets to be manipulated by others. You should try not being one of those people.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, right or wrong, the Supreme Court is throwing it back to congress.. First the EPA [scientificamerican.com], later the FDA, FCC, and more.
Those bureaucrats can make rules that can put people in jail. That is wrong. Only the legislature should have that kind of power. That 47 USC 151 should be challenged in court
Re: (Score:2)
The point you bring up about the EPA is over major questions doctrine. In summary, when a statue is broad and brings forth a major question about the authority granted, the court answers the question at hand rather than ask Congress to clarify it. The point in the dissent here is "what constitutes a major question?" and the answer is "whatever the court decides is one".
The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy
That is from Justice Kagan
Additionally, the point is moot. Congress indicated CO2 as a regulated gas explicitly to the EPA, rendering th
Re: I love how (Score:2)
I thought Ajit Pai turned net neutrality issues over to the FTC, where it rightly belongs, why are we trying to get it back in the hands of the FCC?
Moreover, we empower the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers. But today, we are putting our nationâ(TM)s premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. The FTC will once again have the authority to take action against Internet service providers that engage in anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts. As FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen recently said, âoeThe FTCâ(TM)s ability to protect consumers and promote competition in the broadband industry isnâ(TM)t something new and far-fetched. We have a long-established role in preserving the values that consumers care about online.â Or as President Obamaâ(TM)s first FTC Chairman put it just yesterday, âoethe plan to restore FTC jurisdiction is good for consumers. . . . [T]he sky isnâ(TM)t falling. Consumers will remain protected, and the [I]nternet will continue to thrive.â
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/... [theverge.com]
The quote is from Pai's written statement made before the vote was finalized.
Re: (Score:2)
Pai can claim to be turning issues over to the FTC all he likes. If the FTC refuses to lift a finger to regulate the behavior of ISPs (example: Verizon throttling Netflix [vpnranks.com]), then in effect no one is enforcing "net neutrality" in any form.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you didn't even bother to read the text I copied from my link, wherein the head of the FTC said it was perfectly appropriate for the FTC to take this over:
As FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen recently said, "The FTC's ability to protect consumers and promote competition in the broadband industry isn't something new and far-fetched. We have a long-established role in preserving the values that consumers care about online. Or as President Obama's first FTC Chairman put it just yesterday, "the plan to restore FTC jurisdiction is good for consumers... [T]he sky isn't falling. Consumers will remain protected, and the [I]nternet will continue to thrive.
I like how you imagine one government organization (the FCC) would aggressively pursue Verizon for throttling NetFlix, but a different government organization (the FTC) would - you kids and your optimism!
I find your vpnpranks.com link to not be persuasive - its more about selling VPN accounts, and random rants about people's ISPs aren't very persuasi
Re: (Score:2)
Again
Why does it matter what some unelected bureaucrat says? It matters in what they actually do.
And where do you get the idea that I imagine that the FCC would aggressively pursue anything? It seemed like maybe the Obama FCC was prepared to do something, but the push for "net neutrality" died on the vine before that could be proved one way or the other. The only thing that is clear is that, up to this point, the FTC will turn a blind eye to abusive ISP behavior.
And only Congress can declare war (Score:2)
But between legislation they've passed, and emulating the Three Wise Monkeys, the usual suspects have been getting away with waging undeclared wars for decades.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"One-hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration"
-Mitch McConnell
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously people, if there is any time in history that proves this country desperately needs a viable third-party to actually get the things done in government, this is it folks. We need a third political party of actual adults while we let the children whine, scream, and bicker on the left and the right.
I've repeatedly said that I have no political home. I can't stand the Democrats but at the same time, I can't stand the Republicans either. I'm sick and tired of having to vote between Satan and Cthulhu.
Doesn't seem so crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Yep. Every single one voted against the dark money bill. Oh it might create backlash against rich donors? Cry me a fucking river.
Re: (Score:2)
yes every Billionaire is a democrat except for musk, nevermind the untold number of old money billionares that don't make tabloid headlines, and fuckin trump ya dipshit
Re: (Score:2)
Psst, Trump isn't as rich as you think he is.
The Silent Game of Inaction (Score:2)
This story of Congress silently refusing to act on confirming the appointment of an FCC chairperson reminds me of one of my own experiences.
When I was a litigious prisoner in the U.S. State of Nevada, I slowly learned the hard way that a successful appeal in a prisoner's civil-rights lawsuit is only successful if the lower court was honest but mistaken. If you have to go back to a corrupt court, you have won nothing.
In my one published case, Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1987), I had sued when pri
Sinema? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
both she and the mansion dude (sic) have been the major thorns in getting things done. money is all that matters to those two.
money is all that matters to ALL the R's, of course. not a single one that is maga-based has any morals left at all. its only 'we want our team to win and get power'. period, full stop. nothing else matters. look at the hershel walker case right now. 10 years ago that guy would not even be considered for office but now, even with what's going on with him, the R's are still in
"Democratic majority" (Score:2)
Gee, I would have thought regulatory agencies should be non-partisan. They aren't there to enact either a Democratic or Republican agenda. They're supposed to dispassionately investigate the issues and make recommendations for the good of everyone.
Is that not how it works?
Everything relating to him is in limbo (Score:2)
I have to say this (Score:3)
mod me down all you want. I know lots of you out there are paid to do just that.
I hate republicans and what they are doing to our country.
yes, if you identify, still, as an R today, you are a horrible human being.
had to be said. and dont give me that both sides are bad bullshit. the R's are the spoiled problem-children of this decade and they need to be removed from all places of power until at least the maga shit passes.
until then, while maga is still a thing, if you ID as R, you are a monster. there's no kidding anyone, at this point. which side are you on?